Father?

[JohnDB]

Unfortunately, the Protestant Reformers did not divest themselves entirely of their Catholic baggage. Scholasticism was an integral part of the Catholic Church, and Protestants failed to insist that there be no such thing among evangelical Christians, nor any clerical titles, nor any special clothing to distinguish clergy from laity.

"Following the Reformation, Calvinists largely adopted the scholastic method of theology, while differing regarding sources of authority and content of theology" -- Wikipedia.

Huh?

 

[HeIsRisen2018]

Huh?

Finally I'm not the only one confused around here lol!

 

[Nathan12]

For example tomorrow is Good Friday and I was just wondering how could that be the day when Jesus was crucified if three days later would make it Easter Monday and not Sunday.

Had the traditionalist churches maintained the date of the crucifixion of Christ the same as that of the feast of Passover (Nisan 14), then "Good Friday" would actually be "Good Wednesday", and that would fulfil the prophecy of Christ that His body would be in the tomb for three days and three nights. During that time He was in Sheol/Hades "preaching" to the spirits in prison.

The Bible says that "Christ our Passover" has been sacrificed for us. So the crucifixion of Christ fulfilled the Feast of Passover, and His resurrection fulfilled the Feast of First Fruits.

 

[Nathan12]

Huh?

John, I merely responded to your post #9 which said: Catholics and Protestants alike are guilty of doing exactly what Jesus said not to do.

 

[JLB]

Had the traditionalist churches maintained the date of the crucifixion of Christ the same as that of the feast of Passover (Nisan 14), then "Good Friday" would actually be "Good Wednesday", and that would fulfil the prophecy of Christ that His body would be in the tomb for three days and three nights. During that time He was in Sheol/Hades "preaching" to the spirits in prison.

The Bible says that "Christ our Passover" has been sacrificed for us. So the crucifixion of Christ fulfilled the Feast of Passover, and His resurrection fulfilled the Feast of First Fruits.

So if He was crucified on Wednesday and His body was in the tomb Wednesday night, Thursday night and Friday night then that puts Him rising on the morning of the Sabbath.


Sorry that doesn’t work.




JLB

 

[Nathan12]

His body was in the tomb Wednesday night...

Sunset on Wednesday is also the start of Thursday by Hebrew reckoning (where the previous day ends and the next day begins in the evening). See Genesis 1 which has evening first then morning.

EVE OF HOLIDAYS – ...Unlike the early Babylonians, whose day began with sunrise, the Jews began theirs with sunset. Jewish Encyclopedia

 

[WIP]

As we all know Catholics use "Jesuitical casuistry" to justify their false beliefs. Nothing new.
casuistry
noun
ca·su·ist·ry | \ ˈkazh-wə-strē , ˈka-zhə-\
plural casuistries
Definition of casuistry
1: a resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine
2: specious argument : RATIONALIZATION

Let's not get personal. We Protestants don't have the corner on doctrinal accuracy either.

 

[JLB]

Sunset on Wednesday is also the start of Thursday by Hebrew reckoning (where the previous day ends and the next day begins in the evening). See Genesis 1 which has evening first then morning.

EVE OF HOLIDAYS – ...Unlike the early Babylonians, whose day began with sunrise, the Jews began theirs with sunset. Jewish Encyclopedia

Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation which is Friday.


When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus out and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!” John 19:13-15


Jesus rose on the third day, in the morning.


“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and deliver Him to the Gentiles; and they will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.”
John 10:33-34


If He rose on the third day in the morning then He was not still in the tomb on the night of the third day.




JLB

 

[JLB]

Sunset on Wednesday is also the start of Thursday by Hebrew reckoning (where the previous day ends and the next day begins in the evening). See Genesis 1 which has evening first then morning.

EVE OF HOLIDAYS – ...Unlike the early Babylonians, whose day began with sunrise, the Jews began theirs with sunset. Jewish Encyclopedia

Exactly my point.


Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock, where no one had ever lain before. That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near. (Friday, the day before the Sabbath.)

And the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed after, and they observed the tomb and how His body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils. And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. (Saturday the Sabbath)

Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. Luke 23:53-24:1
(Sunday, the first day of the week) The third Day.




JLB

 

[for_his_glory]

The point being made in Matthew 23:1-12 is Jesus who characterizes the Pharisees saying to not be like them as they exalt themselves. From vs. 13-36 Jesus condemns them and goes as far as calling them hypocrites because they do not practice what they teach and tells us to not be like them.

Matthew 23:10 Jesus says to not be called a teacher as He is our teacher.

1 Corinthians 12:28 Paul is speaking of Spiritual gifts and said the third gift was teachers who God set in the body.

What God set in the body was Christ Jesus who taught His disciples. After Jesus ascended up to heaven God sent down the Holy Spirit that teaches us all things of what Christ taught and that of what God the Father gave Him to speak/teach, John 12:49, 50; 14:26.

I believe when Paul stated one of the gifts from the Spirit was that God set teachers in the body of Christ it's possible he meant that some are called to teach that of what Christ has already taught. Those who have been given the Spiritual gift of teaching have been called, as the disciples of Christ were called and then equipped to take the Gospel message/teaching out to the nations.

So no, we should not call ourselves teachers, nor should a Priest call himself Holy Father as we are ever learning and can only teach others what the Holy Spirit teaches us.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet show I unto you a more excellent way.

I do not believe in self righteous titles like Reverend, Priest, Cardinal, Pastor, Rabbi etc. etc., but that of all who have been called as a disciple/Apostle of Christ. Their are titles found in the scriptures, but that of what God gives and not what man tries to do with their title as in shutting up the kingdom of heaven against men.

 

[Nathan12]

That day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew near. (Friday, the day before the Sabbath.)

There was a high Sabbath after Passover (the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread), in addition to the regular Sabbath. So the Day of Preparation was for this special Sabbath (when no work would be done). So there were two Sabbaths in this week.

LEVITICUS 23
5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. [CRUCIFIXION]
6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. [HIGH SABBATH]
8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
10 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the [REGULAR] sabbath the priest shall wave it. [RESURRECTION]

 

[JohnDB]

John, I merely responded to your post #9 which said: Catholics and Protestants alike are guilty of doing exactly what Jesus said not to do.

And I didn't understand what you are saying.

Both Protestants and Catholics alike are guilty. Maybe your church is perfect but I haven't seen this not broken in a long time.

 

[Nathan12]

Both Protestants and Catholics alike are guilty. Maybe your church is perfect but I haven't seen this not broken in a long time.

Since the OP is about taking clerical titles, I thought we were all on that subject. And both Protestants and Catholics have failed to obey that teaching of Christ. Of course, if you are referring to the falling away within the Christendom, that is a separate issue.

 

[Mungo]

I thought this might be the best forum to post this question.

This morning on my way to work I was listening to an open forum program called, "Seize The Day" hosted by Gus Lloyd on The Catholic Channel on Sirius radio. I listen in quite often as I find it interesting, even though I do find disagreement with much of the Catholic teaching. Gus Lloyd is actually a former Protestant converted to Catholicism.

The topic this morning was about one of the Catholic Cardinals calling into question the practice of referring to the Catholic priests as "Father." This Cardinal, whose name eludes me at the moment, is supposedly raising questions about whether or not this is truly right. Gus Lloyd made it quite clear that he is adamantly not open to considering changing the practice, which made it difficult for anyone siding with the Cardinal to have a reasonable discussion with him.

At any rate, I thought it would be interesting to understand where or when the CC began using this term when referring to the priests. As I understand it and I personally believe most Protestants will cite Matthew 23:9 where Jesus instructed that we should call no man on earth our father. But when I review the text in context, it seems that there may be more to it than that for He also gave other instructions that I never noticed before. Here's the text from the NKJV, chapter 23, v1-10.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ."

It's interesting that He also instructs that we are not to be called teachers. When I was leading the high school Bible study at our church, I personally did not feel comfortable when someone referred to me as teacher or the teacher. I would tell them that I was not qualified to claim that title and that I looked at our class as a shared learning experience. In other words, God's word was our teacher and we were learning together. For some reason, until I looked up the Scripture I posted above, I hadn't notice it before that Jesus says we are not to be called teachers. Maybe this is why I felt so uncomfortable when it happened.

So what do you all think about this? I would also like to hear from our Catholic brothers and/or sisters.

As this is a none debate area I won't do so*. Perhaps someone will like to do so elsewhere.
But I will make a few points.

I think there the fallacy of equivocation going on here.
If I were to say that Catholics don't call their priests Father but they address or entitle them as Father you would probably accuse me of 'Jesuit casuistry' (see post #17). But the point is that the Greek does not use 'call' in the sense of address or entitle (give a title to - COED).

The Collins Concise English Dictionary has 28 (yes twenty eight) different definitions of the verb 'to call' which gives plenty of scope for equivocation.

Consider this passage
As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. (Mt 4:18-21 - RSV)

Here are two uses of called. The first meaning named or addressed or entitled (Simon who is called Peter) is legomenon (Strong 3004). The second is call in the sense of call out to (he called them) ekalesen (Strong 2564). It is this latter that is used in Mt 23:9

* At least I thought it was none debate. But perhaps knocking Catholics is not considered debate!

 

[WIP]

As this is a none debate area I won't do so*. Perhaps someone will like to do so elsewhere.
But I will make a few points.

I think there the fallacy of equivocation going on here.
If I were to say that Catholics don't call their priests Father but they address or entitle them as Father you would probably accuse me of 'Jesuit casuistry' (see post #17). But the point is that the Greek does not use 'call' in the sense of address or entitle (give a title to - COED).

The Collins Concise English Dictionary has 28 (yes twenty eight) different definitions of the verb 'to call' which gives plenty of scope for equivocation.

Consider this passage
As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Immediately they left their nets and followed him. And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. (Mt 4:18-21 - RSV)

Here are two uses of called. The first meaning named or addressed or entitled (Simon who is called Peter) is legomenon (Strong 3004). The second is call in the sense of call out to (he called them) ekalesen (Strong 2564). It is this latter that is used in Mt 23:9

* At least I thought it was none debate. But perhaps knocking Catholics is not considered debate!

Please, I was not knocking Roman Catholics with my question. I was looking for more clarification. Your accusation, if aimed at me, can easily be construed as an attempt to start a debate. Let's just share our viewpoints so we can find that common ground or understanding rather than bringing division.

 

[stovebolts]

f I were to say that Catholics don't call their priests Father but they address or entitle them as Father you would probably accuse me of 'Jesuit casuistry' (see post #17).

Please see WIP post #27 as he already addressed this.

I understand that there is a divide between Catholics and Protestants. However, i think you will find many of our members and staff willing to build bridges.

Grace and peace be with you.

 

[ByGraceThruFaith]

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5: Ἀββᾶ
Ἀββᾶ (WH (βά), Hebrew אָב father, in the Chaldean emphatic state, אַבָּא i. e. ὁ πατήρ, a customary title of God in prayer. Whenever it occurs in the N. T. (Mark 14:36; Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6) it has the Greek interpretation subjoined to it; this is apparently to be explained by the fact that the Chaldee אַבָּא, through frequent use in prayer, gradually acquired the nature of a most sacred proper name, to which the Greek-speaking Jews added the appellative from their own tongue.


Before the Hebrew to Greek subjoining. The words meaning carried authority, eminence, superiority, a right to command. And therefore was applicable only to God Himself. Later the English meaning was subjoined too.

With context always being key, other TITLES change the definition as well.

Example:
Scripture instructs us to honor our Father & Mother. Here the words definition is clearly meant to be applied via our parents.

 

[for_his_glory]

Matthew 23: 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Only one is our Master (teacher, Rabbi, Priest, Reverend) sent by God and that is Christ, but even Christ is a servant unto the Father in heaven and not greater than God as God gave Him what to speak while He was here on earth, John 12:49, 50.

We being disciples (followers of Christ) are servants unto others, without Title, as we like Jesus can only give what God commands us to speak. This is all done by God's Holy Spirit that works in us and through us as we are one body, not denominations/non-denominations, but one body of Christ here on earth. There are different gifts, but the same Spirit as the gifts do not come with self righteous Titles, but given by God's Holy Spirit for the purpose of His ministry, 1 Corinthians 12.

Show me any scripture that says we are to worship and bow down in admiration of a man or a mans religion that lifts him higher than God calling himself Holy Father.

 

[Mungo]

Please, I was not knocking Roman Catholics with my question. I was looking for more clarification. Your accusation, if aimed at me, can easily be construed as an attempt to start a debate. Let's just share our viewpoints so we can find that common ground or understanding rather than bringing division.

I wasn't intending to accuse you personally. I was responding to the OP rather than to you personally. Your OP was making a common - I think false - understanding of Mat 23:9.

 

[Mungo]

Show me any scripture that says we are to worship and bow down in admiration of a man or a mans religion that lifts him higher than God calling himself Holy Father.

Are you inviting me to start an argument about the term Holy Father?